[Non-Sequitur]

But the combined engine wash from a 747 is titanically different from the wash of (say) an F15, a MIG or any of the usual design targets of a AA missile. A 747 wash will easily throw cars around. I can certainly imagine a missile striking the 'wrong' part of a plane if it engaged the wash.

I sometimes have a problem keeping all the missile theories straight, but I don't remember any that identify exactly where the missile was supposed to have hit. Any such place would have shown evidence of an explosion. I know that none of the engines showed damage, what part of the airlplane did?

[agere_contra]

If there was explosive residue found anywhere on the remains then that would clinch it, I guess.

I should explain: I don't know if there was explosive residue found/covered up/discovered by sniffer dog which was later murdered by Bill Clinton - or not.

I don't know if the plane actually suffered an explosion in the fuel-tank area, or if it folded up like an accordion after losing both wings.

I'm just challenging this "heat-seekers must hit the engine" idea, which I believe to be a chimera.

[Bryan24]

I know that none of the engines showed damage, what part of the airlplane did?

Notice the large hole in approximately the center of the plane? THat sits right over the CFT.

Also, reports of shrapnel holes in the back of seats directly over the CFT found here.... http://users.erols.com/igoddard/TWA800/03.htm